I have a dilemma. I am really unsure if christians are supposed to go to missions to evangelize the Jewish people. Some of my friends say it is not what we should do, because God has blinded them and sent us unto the Gentiles, and God has a time when Israel will be saved. And others say that we should be trying to reach the Jews just as much as we are the people in other countries.

Compounding the difficulty is that because of bias and restrictions over there, it's impossible to do mission work in Israel. And Jewish people in general get really upset when you mention Christ to them, no matter what nation they are in. There are exceptions.

Looking for biblical opinions. What do all of you think about this issue. Do you preach to Jewish people, or no?

" For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things".Romans 10:11-15.andreas.

What about those who say that Jews are saved by Christ, but in a different way. And that our evangelizing them is the same as destroying them. One person gave me this quote.

"The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples 'of all nations' means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God," says Reflections on Covenant and Mission. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history".

"The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples 'of all nations' means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God," says Reflections on Covenant and Mission. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history".

What do we answer someone like this?

This quote is correct. This is a good example of the two Covenant theology. What you need to understand is that God has established two different but equally valid covenants. One with His chosen people Israel and the other with the Gentiles. So the teaching is that the Jew does not have to come to the Father because he has been with the Father ever since Sinai. Christians should understand that.

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Let's have a basic starting point, and then we can go from there. Are we all agreed that we should support The Willowbank Declaration?

Of course. All mainline christians would suport this declaration. And the fact is, probably only a few reformed christians would be against it. It's an excellent church document which shows respect for God's chosen people by christians. Who could be against that? What's the point you are making?

Let's have a basic starting point, and then we can go from there. Are we all agreed that we should support The Willowbank Declaration?

David, You have obviously not even read the articles of the declaration, nor could you know what it contains. Because there is no way on earth that this declaration could possibly agree with your Premillennial Dispensational position. In fact, it is totally contrary to everything you've been saying here about the Jewish people, Israel, and their conversion.

What gives? Are you going by what someone told you it said? As we've been telling you, try reading things (like the Bible) yourself, rather than get things second hand.

Logged

Proverbs 1:5-6 "A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings."

No, I have not read all the declaration, I have read quotes from it. But what has that got to do with my saying people should respect the Jewish covenant? I agree with the principles of it, not every line of it. I don't have to.

Gen. 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

That Covenant with Israel has not been broken. The New Covenant with the gentiles doesn't deny this covenant. It's a two covenant theology. You may not agree with it, but you cannot deny it. Jews dn't need to be evangelized in our theology. It's a different dispensation gentiles are in.

Come on David, you cannot have it both ways. But that's Premillennial dispensationalism all over, isn't it? "Two Covenant Theology" is well established as inconsistent, contradictory, and scripturally indefensible. It's like you saying you agree with this declaration, then saying you haven't really read it. That's the way Premillennialists approach study of eschatology. By reading the author of the month, rather than examining things themselves by scripture. Well here's an author for you who reads scripture showing your dilemma.

Dr. William Everett Bell, Jr. has well described this division among dispensationalists over the new covenant and its symptomatic significance:

"Since the "Two-Covenant view", although it is consistent dispensationalism, has not found wide acceptance among dispensationalists because of its obvious exegetical failings, leading dispensationalists are found to be seriously at odds over the problem. All are agreed that the church must not fulfill any of Israel's promises, but the method of preserving the dichotomy with regard to the new covenant is elusive.

On the one hand, some recognize the exegetical casuistry involved in trying to retain the blessings of the covenant apart from any vital relationship to the covenant, and thus posit a second covenant. On the other hand, others recognize the exegetical impossibility of a second covenant and prefer to ignore the casuistry. In either case, the position is basically untenable and points up rather dramatically the hermeneutical dilemma of dispensationalism in attempting to reconcile scripture to a basic presupposition".

What so many people fail to understand is that Judaism is not about worshiping God. Judaism is about worshiping Jews. That's why you can be atheist or agnostic and still be a Jew. Have you ever heard of an atheist Christian or an agnostic Moslem? Of course not. That's because for Christianity and Islam God is the central focus and the object of worship. But for Judaism the Jewish tribe is the central focus and object of worship. God is important only to the extent that he validates Jewish self-worship, and if God ceases to do this then He has no place in Judaism.

What so many people fail to understand is that Judaism is not about worshipping God. Judaism is about worshipping Jews. That's why you can be atheist or agnostic and still be a Jew. Have you ever heard of an atheist Christian or an agnostic Moslem? Of course not. That's because for Christianity and Islam God is the central focus and the object of worship. But for Judaism the Jewish tribe is the central focus and object of worship. God is important only to the extent that he validates Jewish self-worship, and if God ceases to do this then He has no place in Judaism.

I agree with you in principle, but the way you phrase this sounds rather anti-semetic. I trust that this is not the way you meant it.

(AgapePress) - An evangelical Christian leader says it is clear that America's Roman Catholic bishops have strayed away from their long-held belief on the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Last week, American Catholic bishops -- along with leaders from both reformed and conservative Judaism -- issued a joint statement affirming that Jews should not be targeted for conversion to Christianity. David Brickner, executive director of Jews For Jesus, is deeply concerned about that statement. He says the Catholic leaders have erred.

"If Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah, then Christianity is just an opinion, a preference," Brickner says. "And I don't think that Catholics have thought of their faith as just one opinion -- so the bishops have strayed far."

And Brickner says this joint resolution should be a warning to evangelical Christians as well. He calls it "a cautionary tale," especially for those who have been thinking that a movement of reconciliation is possible.

Brickner believes there are many Catholics who believe in the uniqueness of Christ, and he thinks they should be appalled at how far their bishops have strayed from the once firmly held position of the church.

Catholic leaders have erred? Since when? That's an understatement. The point is, there are a lot of christian leaders and groups, both protestant and catholic, who feel that we are not to evangelize Jews.